Laserfiche WebLink
, � <br /> Curtis indicated it has been pushed back and is out of the 20-foot setback. <br /> Levang asked if the deck is still in the bluff setback area. <br /> Curtis indicated it is and noted that the deck is elevated, which would minimize the impact in that area. <br /> Levang asked what the difference is between 25 and 50. <br /> Gaffi-on stated Exhibit D depicts the topography of the area and hat it-sho�a>much flatter topography. <br /> The topography depicted on the current survey shows a rrtuch st�eper slo�e,and it essentially doubles <br /> from 25 percent to 50 percent. The City's definition o�-�he t p of`�Iuff�relies on the change in slope from <br /> greater than 18 percent to less than 18 percent. The t�p o�the blu, zs besz depicted by the 66' contour, <br /> which is shown in Exhibit B. ��� �� " <br /> Gaf&on noted there are still slopes of 20 percent in the�e,a� where � e house is locat,ed.:If�,�ou were to iry <br /> to meet the setback,the lot would be barely buildable. E�liiblt B sh ws�a 12-foot setb"ack`�for the house <br /> and then a deck that is shown within a couple of feet from.,�e�`tc�p�'of bluff on posts. <br /> . <br /> Gaffron stated he would caution the builder that th� are.;cl.ose to the b�iff an�hat they will have to have <br /> some good engineering and be knowledgeable b�out�vhat th�are doing. � `� <br /> Struve stated he would also recommend tha the;app�t subm�.��eering to prove the stability of the <br /> slope. _ <br /> Levang asked if that bluff has failed� reviou 7y <br /> Gaffron stated approximately 20,p usy�ago the e was a�allure on this ro e that was re aired with <br /> P P �Y P <br /> internal bracing and tiebacks. Wxththe recent situatio���=doo where there was a failure,the area had <br /> been walled years and years�o. Ther,e�s no indication at this point what the condition is of that existing <br /> wall and at the moment rt appea�`rs to betstable. <br /> � ._�. , �� <br /> :. <br /> Levang as`ked what accounts for,the diffe�ences between the 2006 survey and the newest survey. <br /> .�. £��~�'�' - �. � ��' <br /> Gaffron7nd icated it is simp�l3,'h�vo d`.rf�ferent surv��ors doing two different versions of the topography. <br /> G on�ated Staff has to g��y vvhat�is presented by the surveyors and that they are not aware of any � <br /> �gesymade to the slope betw en the old survey and the newer one. <br /> �� � . <br /> �.' � � <br /> Bre er staxed the question is whe�her the Planning Commission should review this application again,but <br /> that�the�top�graphy�does not 1 ok tliaf�much different on the two surveys and that it comes down to the <br /> location of`�he bluf�lin . <br /> Gaffron stated t�he`�fference.between the contours is half on one survey than on the other,which <br /> significantly changes �.�e t of slope. � <br /> Bremer commented the angles at which they were done appear similar and that there could be a variation <br /> of nature that could have changed it. <br /> Gaffron noted the drainage on both surveys is basically the same. <br /> Rodney Colson, Colson Custom Homes, stated the aerial photograph does show the properly and the <br /> bluff. The reason the bluff line has changed is due to the unimproved street from North Shore Drive <br />